2005 (4) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for differential duty rate between 18% and 15% on goods acquired from job worker. Eligibility of claimant for refund. Passing on the burden of duty to customers. Comparison of prices before and after the change in duty rate.

Analysis:
The appellants traded goods, including bonding gum manufactured by job workers. The job worker cleared goods to the appellants at 18% duty rate between 7-5-97 to 31-3-98, unaware of the reduced 15% duty rate effective from 7-5-97. The appellants filed a refund claim for the differential duty, but it was rejected by the original and first appellate authorities. The main ground of appeal was that the burden of differential duty was not passed on to customers as prices remained unchanged. The appellants cited a Tribunal decision supporting their claim, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the Department argued that selling goods at the same price post-duty reduction implied passing on the duty burden to customers, relying on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that price uniformity does not negate passing on of duty.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting views in previous cases. In the Metro Tyres case, a refund was allowed based on price uniformity pre and post reclassification/revaluation. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, a later Supreme Court judgment in Allied Photographics India Ltd. emphasized that price uniformity does not automatically indicate the duty burden was not passed on. The Tribunal decided to follow the latter judgment, favoring the Revenue. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that price uniformity alone does not establish whether the duty burden was passed on to customers. The conflicting precedents were considered, leading to the application of the judgment favoring the Revenue in this case.